Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Ninth Circuit Saves Most of California’s New Anti-Employment-Arbitration Law

By Ryan Abernethy on September 16, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Building Column

On September 15, 2021, California’s efforts against the enforcement of employment arbitration agreements continue as the Ninth Circuit reversed, in part, a district court’s conclusion that California Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

AB 51 was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2019. The controversial law prohibits employers from requiring employees to waive, as a condition of employment, their right to sue in court for claims arising under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and related employment statutes.  The law also opens employers up to civil and criminal penalties for certain violations.

In December 2019, days before the law was to take effect, business groups filed a lawsuit contesting the enforcement of the Act. Judge Kimberly Mueller of the Eastern District of California issued a temporary restraining order barring AB 51 from going into effect, and on February 7, 2020, enjoined enforcement of the law as to arbitration agreements covered by the FAA. California appealed the district court’s ruling.

In a split 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed, in part, the district court’s conclusion and ruled that California can require all employment arbitrations be “voluntary and consensual” and found that AB 51 does not unfairly target arbitration agreements or nullify their enforcement in violation of the FAA.

But the Panel affirmed the district court’s determination that the civil and criminal penalties associated with AB 51 were preempted. “The imposition of civil and criminal sanctions for the act of executing an arbitration agreement directly conflicts with the FAA and such an imposition of sanctions is indeed preempted,” the Panel said.

The panel vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining AB 51’s enforcement and remanded for further proceedings.

The business groups are expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court which has previously chided California for its hostility towards the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

Stay tuned.

 

 

Photo of Ryan Abernethy Ryan Abernethy

Ryan Abernethy is a shareholder in the firm’s Labor & Employment and Litigation practice groups. Ryan has successfully represented clients in all areas of employment law including the defense of claims involving workplace discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, wage and hour issues, trade…

Ryan Abernethy is a shareholder in the firm’s Labor & Employment and Litigation practice groups. Ryan has successfully represented clients in all areas of employment law including the defense of claims involving workplace discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, wage and hour issues, trade secrets infringements and class actions.  He also regularly counsels clients regarding compliance, risk management, policy preparation and training.

Read more about Ryan AbernethyEmailRyan's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    The Labor & Employment Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Weintraub Tobin
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo